A Comparison of Indirect Versus Experimental Strategies for the Assessment of Pica

University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.06). 07/2009; 39(11):1582-6. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-009-0766-8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We conducted functional analyses of pica for three individuals with varying levels of intellectual disabilities. In addition, two indirect assessment instruments (the Motivational Assessment Scale [MAS], and the Questions About Behavioral Function [QABF]) were also administered to both the parent and teacher of the child participants. Results of the functional analyses indicated that pica was sensitive to automatic reinforcement. Further, results of both the MAS and QABF also suggested behavioral sensitivity to automatic reinforcement.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Challenging behaviors (CB) in the form of self-injurious behaviors, aggression, property destruction, tantrums, pica, and other disruptive activities are common among persons with intellectual disabilities. Lack of social and communication skills, temperament issues, and other symptoms that characterize these persons contribute to the high rates of CB. In recent years, applied behavior analysis (ABA) has proven to be a particularly effective treatment for these issues. Functional assessment is a foundational strategy for such intervention. The methods most commonly used to achieve this goal include interviews and observations, experimental functional analysis, in vivo assessment, and standardized tests. The purpose of this group of techniques is to establish the variables that maintain the behavior, and treatment then flows from these data. This paper reviews the current state of the art in the area of functional assessment.
    06/2014; DOI:10.1007/s40474-013-0006-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Challenging behavior is one of the largest barriers to ensuring that people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are able to participate in the community. These difficulties have become one of the main causes of social exclusion. The research into and treatment of challenging behavior has usually involved the identification of its function and the manipulation of the events or environmental conditions that influence its occurrence (antecedent variables). The present research explores the relationship between antecedents and behavioral function and the extent to which antecedent variables may act as predictors of behavioral function. This relationship is explored using two standardized instruments: Questions About Behavioral Function and Contextual Assessment Inventory. Data from the validation of these instruments for the Spanish population involved 300 participants with ID and 328 challenging behaviors. The results suggest that social/cultural variables are most related to challenging behavior, whereas biological variables seem to only be related to physically maintained behavior.
    Research in developmental disabilities 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.040 · 4.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared two functional behavioral assessment methods: the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF; a standardized test) and experimental functional analysis (EFA) to identify behavioral functions of aggressive/destructive behavior, self-injurious behavior and stereotypy in 32 people diagnosed with autism. Both assessments found that self injurious behavior (SIB) was mostly maintained by automatic reinforcement and escape from task demands. Aggressive/destructive behavior was found to be maintained by escape and access to tangibles, whereas stereotypy was mostly maintained by automatic reinforcement. There was exact agreement on function(s) between the two assessments for 24 participants and partial agreement for six participants. Results suggest that the QABF has clinical utility and is an effective tool for ascribing behavioral function. Implications of the present findings for future assessment of behavioral function are discussed.
    Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 01/2013; 7(1):66–81. DOI:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.05.006 · 2.96 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014